Talk:Sensitive periods/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sensitive periods. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Copied
This page has been copied from the external link. I assume this means it's infringing copyright...
I have permission from the author to do so, it's not infringing copyright. Thunderbolt16 22:33, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I made some major major changes to this article, giving a different view on the sensitive periods (more from a neurological/developmental angle) and adding some references to Dr. Montessori's published materials.MatthewDBA
Notes
To the best of my knowledge, the edition of The Absorbent Mind referenced in the bibliography is no longer in print, and the edition of The Secret Of Childhood may or may not be. Recent translations of Dr. Montessori's work have been published by Clio Press, and are available through the website of Nienhuis Montessori, the world's largest manufacturer and vendor of Montessori materials and publications.
Clio have now stopped publishing Montessori's books. Most are now available from the Montessori-Pearson publishing house, but recently a large number of other editions (???pirated) have come on stream at Amazon etc. U2009 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Lack of context
This article seems to set out a particular conception of childhood. It lacks context on other views and a criticial evaluation of these opinions. Sumahoy 19:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Montessori split
This article is about a particular understanding of development (Montessori) with which many would disagree and lacks reference to the research in neurodevelopment and cognitive development upon sensitive periods--research that is not mentioned here. This content is more appropriate in a separate article and this might allow such omitted research to get a space.--LittleHow (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- If all of this article is focused on Montessori, then why split it in two? There could be a redirect from the other title you suggested. This page can have sections that emphasise differences if there are few. I'd rather have a longer page with a bit of exception, than two short pages that you must find and read in full. Rixs (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have created a redirect to this article. Split not appropriate. SilkTork *YES! 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)